Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Rubbish - I showed you multiple definitions as such. In fact I think I gave you about four since it struck me how you missed it. You rejected believers!

Anyway, The first google hit:

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms:deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"
exclamation
1.
used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress.

Those multiple definitions give multiple versions of God. The first one applies to the monotheistic God which is the primary focus of the debate (you have constantly invoked things that are only relevant to this God - such as miracle, angels, and heaven). The second one applies to what I would term "Pagan Gods".

Any theist would say that BOTH the monotheistic God and Pagan Gods don't exist.

So if you are going to argue that the monotheistic God does not exist, you must accept the definition of the monotheistic God before you can argue that, which is definition 1. So if you do not accept definition 1 (or any other dictionary definition of the monotheistic God) then your argument fails to show that the monotheistic God does not exist. So you cannot reject definition 1 and likewise argue that God does not exist.

Again, if you can provide a dictionary definition of the monotheistic God that includes "believed by people" I will accept it. And I will stick to my word regarding Pagan Gods and say that they, by definition, have believers. But that does not apply to the Monotheistic God.

So either accept the definition of the monotheistic God that you yourself provided, find a definition of that God that you would rather use, or you cannot argue that the monotheistic God doesn't exist for your definition does not apply to the monotheistic God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Nope, you resorted to turtles outside of the role play.

I know I never resorted to Turtles in an attempt to show that God exists. I know that because I never argued that God exists.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It's not a dodge to say I don't know which natural, scientifically consistent method was used.

No, it's begging the question. You have not shown that a natural, scientifically consistent method was used so it's not appropriate to sneak that into your answer

But regardless, your response amounted to "I don't know" so you are incapable of defending your position with supported claims just like Theo couldn't do it.

He went three rounds before giving up. You didn't even go one round.

So the Turtle test showed the same results for a theist and an atheist. Neither could support their claim with any credible evidence when asked to do so.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Now you answer, how does God RULE the universe?

I never said that God exists or rules the universe so I have no answer to that question.

And Theo can just use your answer "I don't know which natural, scientifically consistent method God used to make the universe".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

And the miracles, claims that religions make, have been proven impossible - by definition they are impossible otherwise they won't be miracles. So there's your proof.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that ALL claimed miracles are impossible.

And to define what a miracle is and is not, we should use the dictionary. So start off with a valid definition of "miracle".

[QUOTE=SadElephant;552898]You haven't said anything plausible at all! You've basically said "It's possible that a being who fits the definition of a talking strawberry created the universe". It's a bare statement - you haven't said HOW it's possible. It's an unfounded bare assertion. Please clarify.[/quote[

i DID say how it's possible. To repeat:

1. LOGICAL AXIOM: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.
2. FACT: On this thread, no one has shown that God's existence is impossible
3. THEREFORE: Since no one has shown that God's existence is impossible, God's existence is possible.

I used logic (point 1) and fact (point 2) to logically draw the conclusion that God's existence is, as far as we know, possible.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

I can't seem to edit my prior post so this is an addendum to it. This is regarding miracles. It appears to me that you play quite a few semantic games as in attempt to define a word in a way that helps your argument. For example, you have apparently defined "miracle" to be something that is impossible. "Something that is impossible" is not part of the definition. So as far as what is and is not a miracle, I am going by the definition. The definition of "miracle" is:

"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

So for something to qualify as a miracle it must:

1. Not be explicable by current scientific law
2. Be considered by someone to be the work of a divine agency.

The things that Jesus supposedly did (raise the dead, make water into wine) do qualify as miracles since these occurrences are not explicable by scientific law and people have attributed them to divine agency but miracles happen even today.

For example:

"Given the spread of the tumours, radiotherapy would not have been effective; nor could the doctors dig the tumours from the skin. Amputation was perhaps the best option, says Alan Irvine, the patient’s doctor at St James’ Hospital, Dublin – but at her age, she was unlikely to adapt well to a prosthetic limb. After a long and frank discussion, they decided to wait as they weighed up the options. “We had a lot of agonising for what to do,” says Irvine.
Then the “miracle” started. Despite receiving no treatment at all, the tumours were shrinking and shrivelling before their eyes. “We watched for a period of a few months and the tumours just disappeared,” says Irvine. After 20 weeks, the patient was cancer-free. “There had been no doubt about her diagnosis,” he says. “But now there was nothing in the biopsies, or the scans.”
Somehow, she had healed herself of arguably our most feared disease. “Everyone was thrilled, and a bit puzzled,” Irvine says, with some understatement. “It shows that it is possible for the body to clear cancer – even if it is incredibly rare.”
The question is, how? Irvine’s patient believed it was the hand of God; she had kissed a religious relic just before the healing set in."

So the above IS a miracle. Science cannot explain why the cure happened (yet, anyway) and someone believes that the divine was the cause of the cure.

Of course it would not be unreasonable to think the cure is something that is neither supernatural nor explicable by science such as a highly unusual event that has a natural explanation but we just don't know what the explanation is at this time (such as undiscovered genetic mutation that gives certain people the power of healing themselves once they put their minds to it). But unless one can show that it's impossible that a divine agent was responsible for this healing, one cannot support that this miracle did not actually happen by divine agency.

So not only is "impossible" not part of the actual definition, it is not supported that all claimed miracles did not happen by divine agency

Again, I'm not saying that any miracles are indeed legitimate, just that it's not been supported that they are all bogus. Can you show, with evidence, that the above miracle did not happen by divine agency?

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

Those multiple definitions give multiple versions of God. The first one applies to the monotheistic God which is the primary focus of the debate (you have constantly invoked things that are only relevant to this God - such as miracle, angels, and heaven). The second one applies to what I would term "Pagan Gods".

Any theist would say that BOTH the monotheistic God and Pagan Gods don't exist.

OK so what do theists believe in?

So if you are going to argue that the monotheistic God does not exist, you must accept the definition of the monotheistic God before you can argue that, which is definition 1. So if you do not accept definition 1 (or any other dictionary definition of the monotheistic God) then your argument fails to show that the monotheistic God does not exist. So you cannot reject definition 1 and likewise argue that God does not exist.

BY definition mono-theism means there's only one hard - I don't know who you are talking about.

Again, if you can provide a dictionary definition of the monotheistic God that includes "believed by people" I will accept it. And I will stick to my word regarding Pagan Gods and say that they, by definition, have believers. But that does not apply to the Monotheistic God.

So either accept the definition of the monotheistic God that you yourself provided, find a definition of that God that you would rather use, or you cannot argue that the monotheistic God doesn't exist for your definition does not apply to the monotheistic God.

Wikipedia on monotheism:
Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God.[1] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism.[2]

I know I never resorted to Turtles in an attempt to show that God exists. I know that because I never argued that God exists.

No but you have resorted to turtles when trying to explain your own definitions - i.e. Your own definition doesn't hold water.

No, it's begging the question. You have not shown that a natural, scientifically consistent method was used so it's not appropriate to sneak that into your answer

But regardless, your response amounted to "I don't know" so you are incapable of defending your position with supported claims just like Theo couldn't do it.

He went three rounds before giving up. You didn't even go one round.

So the Turtle test showed the same results for a theist and an atheist. Neither could support their claim with any credible evidence when asked to do so.

Ah, but the difference is (if I could be bothered to look it up) is that what I don't know is not a blank check. What I don't know is still within the knowledge and scope of what I do know (or what we all know about the beginnings of the universe).

I'm not invoking inventions to explain inventions.

I never said that God exists or rules the universe so I have no answer to that question.

And Theo can just use your answer "I don't know which natural, scientifically consistent method God used to make the universe".

... so I will invent something else to explain my pre-existing belief! It's one thing to say I don't know how something works but it's another to make something else up - like your forces or something.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that ALL claimed miracles are impossible.

And to define what a miracle is and is not, we should use the dictionary. So start off with a valid definition of "miracle".

You haven't said anything plausible at all! You've basically said "It's possible that a being who fits the definition of a talking strawberry created the universe". It's a bare statement - you haven't said HOW it's possible. It's an unfounded bare assertion. Please clarify.[/quote[

i DID say how it's possible. To repeat:

1. LOGICAL AXIOM: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.
2. FACT: On this thread, no one has shown that God's existence is impossible
3. THEREFORE: Since no one has shown that God's existence is impossible, God's existence is possible.

I used logic (point 1) and fact (point 2) to logically draw the conclusion that God's existence is, as far as we know, possible.

That looks like text book arguing from ignorance: something is true (God's existence) until someone proves it to be false.

At the end of the day all you have left is a bare assertion (strawberries) with no really argument other than it's because no-one has proved it false.

I think no matter how to you at it, you are tapping into a set of knowledge that you know nothing about, can't prove, and can't even link with our reality. If you can't do those things then you really have nothing.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Which mean that your burden is not to show that EITHER definitions of God exist but that BOTH definitions of God don't exist (and you can't combine them). So you have to show that BOTH the Monotheistic God "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority" (definition 1) and PAGAN Gods "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes" (per definition 2) doesn't exist.

Now, I'm fine limiting your burden to just showing that the monotheistic God does not exist just to keep the debate focused. So regarding the monotheistic God - since the first definition makes no mentions of miracles, believers, alternate realms, ect. discounting those things does not show that the Monotheistic God (definition 1) does not exist.

So to restate - you can't add stuff that is not currently present in the definition of the monotheistic God and then argue that that stuff does not exist to show that the monotheistic God does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

OK so what do theists believe in?

I meant "atheist", not theist. Like I said, I was unable to edit my post so I couldn't correct that. But my argument regarding this is presented above so you can ignore this point.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Wikipedia on monotheism:
Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God.[1] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism.[2]

Right. So what?

I am not referring to the definition of "Monotheism", I am referring to the definition of "God".

"monotheism" and "God" are the different words so what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. The difference between "God" and "monotheism" is similar to the difference between Dr. Who and the Dr. Who Fan Club. They certainly have things in common but they are not the same thing and the definitions are not interchangeable.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No but you have resorted to turtles when trying to explain your own definitions - i.e. Your own definition doesn't hold water.

"Doesn't hold water" is too vague a term for me to generate a response to. What do you mean by "doesn't hold water"?

If you mean that the definition does not support itself or is based on something that is not supported, that's true but so what? REMEMBER, I'm an agnostic and have NEVER sought to argue that God's existence can be supported.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Ah, but the difference is (if I could be bothered to look it up) is that what I don't know is not a blank check. What I don't know is still within the knowledge and scope of what I do know (or what we all know about the beginnings of the universe).

I'm not invoking inventions to explain inventions.

No, you are invoking nothing whatsoever (your answer was essentially "I don't know"). As far as supporting that "it" exists, unsupported claims and no claims at all equally fail.

So again, you failed the turtle test just like Theo did.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

... so I will invent something else to explain my pre-existing belief! It's one thing to say I don't know how something works but it's another to make something else up - like your forces or something.

Actually, when portraying Theo, I made absolutely nothing up. All of my answers were based on my best understanding of Christian theology (and I did not invent Christian theology so I didn't make it up). So I made nothing up but was forwarding information that I learned from others.

And I (Theo) did not stop answering because you finally stumped me but because I got tired of answering your questions. But of course if we had continued on, you would have eventually asked me for a detail about Christian theology that I didn't know and then I would have had to say "I don't know".

So the end results for Theo was the same as it was for you. Ultimately one says "I don't know". So again, the test treated both you and Theo the same. Both of you ended up saying "I don't know".

Note that there is nothing in there that says that the event is impossible or wasn't in fact caused by the power of God.

For example, if a person was expected to die from cancer and then "miraculously" recovered and the doctors are stumped about why it happened and the patient's family believed that God answered their prayers, then it qualifies as "miracle" regardless of whether God had anything to do with it. And until one proves that God does not exist or doesn't answer prayers, it can't be proven that God didn't have a hand in healing the person.

Of course it's reasonable for an atheist to think that God had nothing to do it and I'd personally be skeptical myself (sometimes strange things happen for natural reasons that we don't understand) but until they prove that God doesn't exist, they can't prove that it wasn't a "genuine" miracle.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

That looks like text book arguing from ignorance: something is true (God's existence) until someone proves it to be false.

The axiom did not say that it was "True"; it said it was "possible" (possible is different than true). Since you misunderstood my argument, your rebuttal is irrelevant to it. So I will repeat my argument and it stands until you do offer a relevant and valid rebuttal.

1. LOGICAL AXIOM: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.
2. FACT: On this thread, no one has shown that God's existence is impossible
3. THEREFORE: Since no one has shown that God's existence is impossible, God's existence is possible.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

Which mean that your burden is not to show that EITHER definitions of God exist but that BOTH definitions of God don't exist. So you have to show that BOTH the Monotheistic God "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority" (definition 1) and PAGAN Gods "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes" (per definition 2) doesn't exist.

Now, I'm fine limiting your burden to just showing that the monotheistic God does not exist just to keep the debate focused. So regarding the monotheistic God - since the first definition makes no mentions of miracles, believers, alternate realms, ect. discounting those things does not show that the Monotheistic God (definition 1) does not exist.

So to restate - you can't add stuff that is not currently present in the definition of the monotheistic God and then argue that that stuff does not exist to show that the monotheistic God does not exist.

So you concede then that the 'definition' of God requires believers. Correct?

Right. So what?

I am not referring to the definition of "Monotheism", I am referring to the definition of "God".

"monotheism" and "God" are the different words so what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. The difference between "God" and "monotheism" is similar to the difference between Dr. Who and the Dr. Who Fan Club. They certainly have things in common but they are not the same thing and the definitions are not interchangeable.

I'm not clear why you're bringing up monotheism then.

Code:

"Doesn't hold water" is too vague a term for me to generate a response to. What do you mean by "doesn't hold water"?
If you mean that the definition does not support itself or is based on something that is not supported, that's true but so what? REMEMBER, I'm an agnostic and have NEVER sought to argue that God's existence can be supported.

It means that you postulated a strawberry that created the universe and rules over us but you couldn't explain what created means or how or where this strawberry lives and neither could you explain what 'rule over' really meant and how or what evidence you have for such a role.
Now note: we aren't even arguing about God's existence at this point - I am just asking you for clarification as to what you even mean by the words you use. Otherwise, you're just throwing out an old garbage until it sticks. Thus far, you have failed to explain the meanings of the words you use to define the God you think COULD exist.

No, you are invoking nothing whatsoever (your answer was essentially "I don't know"). As far as supporting that "it" exists, unsupported claims and no claims at all equally fail.

So again, you failed the turtle test just like Theo did.

Nope. Again we have to begin with defining the universe that we are discussing - yours, one based on the possibility of the supernatural, has no basis on the facts of the universe we currently know about. My lack of knowledge is not based on the supernatural - it is based on MISSING information, not more unproveable speculation.

Actually, when portraying Theo, I made absolutely nothing up. All of my answers were based on my best understanding of Christian theology (and I did not invent Christian theology so I didn't make it up). So I made nothing up but was forwarding information that I learned from others.

And I (Theo) did not stop answering because you finally stumped me but because I got tired of answering your questions. But of course if we had continued on, you would have eventually asked me for a detail about Christian theology that I didn't know and then I would have had to say "I don't know".

So the end results for Theo was the same as it was for you. Ultimately one says "I don't know". So again, the test treated both you and Theo the same. Both of you ended up saying "I don't know".

And you never supported that ANYTHING that Theo said was not true.

Of course Theo was made up - it's based upon your poor understanding of theology from a non-practioner. I don't have to accept anything your Theo says as being anything representative of a bona fide Christian. That you feel that I would exhausted knowledge is sufficient for me to know that you are not a true believer and therefore do not have access to the reasoning processes that a true believer would give. And your eventual admission of lack of knowledge highlights what a poor path of discussion it is - not only do you not have access to information but you do not believe it either. It's a pointless thought experiment. So let's pretend Theo has any purpose other than proving that you're not a Christian and shouldn't speak for them.

To avoid semantic games, we need to use a dictionary definition when defining what a particular word means. I forward:

"an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God"

Note that there is nothing in there that says that the event is impossible or wasn't in fact caused by the power of God.

For example, if a person was expected to die from cancer and then "miraculously" recovered and the doctors are stumped about why it happened and the patient's family believed that God answered their prayers, then it qualifies as "miracle" regardless of whether God had anything to do with it. And until one proves that God does not exist or doesn't answer prayers, it can't be proven that God didn't have a hand in healing the person.

Of course it's reasonable for an atheist to think that God had nothing to do it and I'd personally be skeptical myself (sometimes strange things happen for natural reasons that we don't understand) but until they prove that God doesn't exist, they can't prove that it wasn't a "genuine" miracle.

And there we have the first instance of a circular argument: God exists because he performs miracles. Miracles are things that God performs.

The axiom did not say that it was "True"; it said it was "possible". Since you misunderstood my argument, your rebuttal is irrelevant to it. So I will repeat my argument and it stands until you do offer a relevant and valid rebuttal.

1. LOGICAL AXIOM: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.
2. FACT: On this thread, no one has shown that God's existence is impossible
3. THEREFORE: Since no one has shown that God's existence is impossible, God's existence is possible.

I think your argument is still relying on something being true (that God's existence is POSSIBLE) because no-one has proven otherwise. It feels like text-book arguing from ignorance again. Not sure how you can escape that argument. Where do you get this axiom, there's something wrong with it, possibly with the word 'proven to be'.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

So you concede then that the 'definition' of God requires believers. Correct?

Not the Monotheistic God

Again, here's the definition:

"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

Nowhere is "believers" present in that definition nor have your provided an alternative definition of the monotheistic God that includes "believers".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I'm not clear why you're bringing up monotheism then.

To separate the first definition from the second definition.

The first definition applies to the monotheistic God and the second definition applies to a different kind of God (which I have termed Pagan God).

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It means that you postulated a strawberry that created the universe and rules over us but you couldn't explain what created means or how or where this strawberry lives and neither could you explain what 'rule over' really meant and how or what evidence you have for such a role.

I'm agnostic so IF such a being exists OF COURSE I don't know where it exists or exactly how it rules over us. But that in no way demonstrates that it doesn't live somewhere or rules over us somehow. It just means that I don't know how it does it. So my lack of knowledge doesn't support that God doesn't exist the same way that you balking at my turtle question regarding atheism doesn't show that atheism is false.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Now note: we aren't even arguing about God's existence at this point - I am just asking you for clarification as to what you even mean by the words you use. Otherwise, you're just throwing out an old garbage until it sticks. Thus far, you have failed to explain the meanings of the words you use to define the God you think COULD exist.

Maybe I've failed to explain them to your SUBJECTIVE satisfaction but your subjective satisfaction of when a term has been adequately explained means NOTHING.

For example, you DO know what "rule" means, right? It means to have authority over others. And of course one can ask for more detail on how exactly God rules us. But someone not giving you more detail on exactly how God rules the universe does not support that God doesn't rule the universe.

It's like if I asked you what your job is and you told me but I didn't understand what your job entails and you refused to give me enough details so I understood what your job actually is. Based on that, I could not logically conclude that you don't actually have the job you claimed you did. My understanding of your job does not effect whether you have your job and your understanding of how God rules the universe does not effect whether God rules the universe.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Nope. Again we have to begin with defining the universe that we are discussing - yours, one based on the possibility of the supernatural, has no basis on the facts of the universe we currently know about. My lack of knowledge is not based on the supernatural - it is based on MISSING information, not more unproveable speculation.

No, your position likewise no basis on the facts of the universe we currently know about. Since you did not answer the question, you have stated absolutely no facts so it has no basis on the facts of the universe.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Of course Theo was made up - it's based upon your poor understanding of theology from a non-practioner.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my knowledge of theology is inadequate compared to the average practitioner.

The position that non-practioners all have an inadequate knowledge of theology is logically flawed. Nor have you shown that the answers that I did give showed an inadequate knowledge of theism. So I reject your assertion and will ignore all further claims as such until you do support it.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I don't have to accept anything your Theo says as being anything representative of a bona fide Christian. That you feel that I would exhausted knowledge is sufficient for me to know that you are not a true believer and therefore do not have access to the reasoning processes that a true believer would give.

Very flawed reasoning. You asked for information about things that weren't in the bible (such as what the universe is made of) so even someone with perfect knowledge of the bible would not be able to answer all your questions. So your questions would have stumped the average theist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

And there we have the first instance of a circular argument: God exists because he performs miracles. Miracles are things that God performs.

Nowhere does my argument say that. So I will just leave this part with the definition of miracles, which is:

"an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God"

And likewise forward that you have not shown that miracles are impossible.e

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I think your argument is still relying on something being true (that God's existence is POSSIBLE) because no-one has proven otherwise.

I do not hold that the logical axiom is not true because no one has shown that it isn't. It's true because it's logically valid. I guess if I have to support the obvious, I will.

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.
3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just common sense. If you are going to challenge it, please point to a specific flaw in the above reasoning.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

Nowhere is "believers" present in that definition nor have your provided an alternative definition of the monotheistic God that includes "believers".

OMG - are you seriously bringing in another definition?

Besides, a google of "monothestic god" says:

Monotheism is the belief in a single all-powerful god, as opposed to religions that believe in multiple gods. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are widely practiced forms of monotheism.

Besides, you'd already conceded to my definition if I could prove that believers are referenced so there's no point bringing in yet another (11th?) definition.

To separate the first definition from the second definition.

The first definition applies to the monotheistic God and the second definition applies to a different kind of God (which I have termed Pagan God).

Don't they both perform supernatural acts?

I'm agnostic so IF such a being exists OF COURSE I don't know where it exists or exactly how it rules over us. But that in no way demonstrates that it doesn't live somewhere or rules over us somehow. It just means that I don't know how it does it. So my lack of knowledge doesn't support that God doesn't exist the same way that you balking at my turtle question regarding atheism doesn't show that atheism is false.

Your lack of knowledge however is on multiple levels:

1. You cannot define the entity you think COULD exist without invoking other things that COULD exist - your nested turtle arguments of one unfounded claim with another unfounded claim is just full of holes.
2. You cannot explain what your God even is or does (on the one hand it performs miracles, on another it doesn't; on the one hand it is supposed to RULE over us, which you haven't explained, on the other hand, above, it is now merely an authority, again, if I probed, you would fail to explain).
3. You haven't connected our physical natural reality with the supernatural miraculous one so you can't even begin to discuss this God because you're universe is not supported either.

In short, you really have nothing to support the supernatural universe required for your deity to exist in. You literally have nothing, can prove nothing and are just throwing bare assertions and depending on appealing to ignorance to support your point.

Maybe I've failed to explain them to your SUBJECTIVE satisfaction but your subjective satisfaction of when a term has been adequately explained means NOTHING.

For example, you DO know what "rule" means, right? It means to have authority over others. And of course one can ask for more detail on how exactly God rules us. But someone not giving you more detail on exactly how God rules the universe does not support that God doesn't rule the universe.

It's like if I asked you what your job is and you told me but I didn't understand what your job entails and you refused to give me enough details so I understood what your job actually is. Based on that, I could not logically conclude that you don't actually have the job you claimed you did. My understanding of your job does not effect whether you have your job and your understanding of how God rules the universe does not effect whether God rules the universe.

Um, if you can't explain how God RULES over us, i.e point to these rulings, or explain how they're communicated or how they're enforced and the consequences of obeying or disobeying then you're just making up some random thing that God does.

You see, you're making an explicit natural world claim as to what God is doing to our universe and all the humans in it. If you can't explain further as to specifically what this means then you might as well say God is subservient to us. Again, you're making unfounded claims as to what God is before you can even support his natural existence and the universe he can exist in. In other words, turtles.

On the other hand, if you don't understand my job, I can show you in as much detail as possible what that job is - you're not refusing to tell me about God's job: you literally don't know. You don't know how he does it, what he even does nor explain how you are ruled by him.

No, your position likewise no basis on the facts of the universe we currently know about. Since you did not answer the question, you have stated absolutely no facts so it has no basis on the facts of the universe.

Here's one: our current knowledge of the movement of stars shows that we are expanding from a single event at the beginning of the universe.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my knowledge of theology is inadequate compared to the average practitioner.

The position that non-practioners all have an inadequate knowledge of theology is logically flawed. Nor have you shown that the answers that I did give showed an inadequate knowledge of theism. So I reject your assertion and will ignore all further claims as such until you do support it.

Well, you have shown you have inadequate knowledge - it's something which you already admitted to. Feverishly googling doesn't really count as great support. I'll have to look back at the specific point where you betrayed your authenticity but it's basically based on the fact that you do not believe: theists at some point have to admit they have zero proof of their position and rely on their personal faith and justify it in terms of cultural pressures or social good. When we get there then the theist will reveal that his belief is based on nothing but emotion.

Very flawed reasoning. You asked for information about things that weren't in the bible (such as what the universe is made of) so even someone with perfect knowledge of the bible would not be able to answer all your questions. So your questions would have stumped the average theist.

SUPPORT or RETRACT that ONLY the Bible can provide answers to religious questions. There's about 2,000 years of knowledge to tap.

Nowhere does my argument say that. So I will just leave this part with the definition of miracles, which is:

"an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God"

And likewise forward that you have not shown that miracles are impossible.e

It's still circular - do you have any definitions that aren't circular!

I do not hold that the logical axiom is not true because no one has shown that it isn't. It's true because it's logically valid. I guess if I have to support the obvious, I will.

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.
3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just common sense. If you are going to challenge it, please point to a specific flaw in the above reasoning.

1. I believe this isn't true because in a quantum universe, you cannot know the complete truth of something without looking. And so it can be impossible that shrodinger's cat is dead or possible that he's dead the same time until you've observed it.
2. Yet you are able to do the opposite and claim that something is possible without support.
3. Appeal to ignorance. It is also possible that something cannot be proven to be true and yet it is. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed this with mathematical systems.

Therefore, every line of your reasoning fails on basic facts of what we know about the universe.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by SadElephant

OMG - are you seriously bringing in another definition?

No. It's the definition that you forwarded a few posts ago.

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More

That is the only definition of the monotheistic God I'm going with at this point and likewise it how many theists define God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Besides, a google of "monothestic god" says

No, that is the definition of "monotheism", not "monotheistic God".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Besides, you'd already conceded to my definition if I could prove that believers are referenced so there's no point bringing in yet another (11th?) definition.

And you have yet to prove that believers are referenced in ANY definition of dictionary God that applies to the monotheistic God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Don't they both perform supernatural acts?

Define "supernatural acts" and use a dictionary source for your definition of "supernatural".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Your lack of knowledge however is on multiple levels:

1. You cannot define the entity you think COULD exist without invoking other things that COULD exist - your nested turtle arguments of one unfounded claim with another unfounded claim is just full of holes.
2. You cannot explain what your God even is or does (on the one hand it performs miracles, on another it doesn't; on the one hand it is supposed to RULE over us, which you haven't explained, on the other hand, above, it is now merely an authority, again, if I probed, you would fail to explain).
3. You haven't connected our physical natural reality with the supernatural miraculous one so you can't even begin to discuss this God because you're universe is not supported either.

First off, you have not shown that a "true believer" can do any of those things so this does not demonstrate that I have lesser knowledge of theism than the average theists so I still reject any assertion that Theo was not a valid representation of a theist.

As far as not explaining things further, I say "so what?". If you don't know what "rule" means, consults a dictionary. If you aren't satisfied with the simple definition of the word and want more detail on HOW God rules the universe and no one gives it to you, it does not mean that God doesn't rule the universe - only that you don't understand how God does it. The fact that no one has explained anything to your satisfaction is irrelevant to whether God exists or not.

And I already hold the position that God's existence is not supported so pointing this out means nothing.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

In short, you really have nothing to support the supernatural universe required for your deity to exist in. You literally have nothing, can prove nothing and are just throwing bare assertions and depending on appealing to ignorance to support your point.

I'm not throwing out bare assertions for God's existence because I don't argue that God exists. And SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have used the ignorance from argument fallacy to support my position that no one has supported that God exists and that no one has supported that God does not exist (for that is my position).

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Um, if you can't explain how God RULES over us, i.e point to these rulings, or explain how they're communicated or how they're enforced and the consequences of obeying or disobeying then you're just making up some random thing that God does.

No. My position is that I don't know if God exists and therefore don't know how God rules over us if God even exists.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You see, you're making an explicit natural world claim as to what God is doing to our universe and all the humans in it. If you can't explain further as to specifically what this means then you might as well say God is subservient to us.

No. There happens to be a definition of the word "rule" and it doesn't suddenly mean the opposite of its definition just because one doesn't explain exactly how God rules. If the being does not rule as the word is understood, then it, by definition, is not God so a subservient being is not God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Again, you're making unfounded claims as to what God is before you can even support his natural existence and the universe he can exist in. In other words, turtles.

My claim as to what God is is fully supported. The dictionary is a valid source of support for the definition of words and since the dictionary defines the monotheistic God as a being that created and rules the universe, I have support that that is what God is.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

On the other hand, if you don't understand my job, I can show you in as much detail as possible what that job is - you're not refusing to tell me about God's job: you literally don't know. You don't know how he does it, what he even does nor explain how you are ruled by him.

Okay. But if you didn't tell me anything about your job beyond the title and someone asked me what you job is and I told them your job tittle but could not explain the details because I don't know them, is the person I'm talking to justified in thinking that you don't actually have that job?

Of course not. They would think that I know what job you have but don't know enough about your job to adequately explain it.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Here's one: our current knowledge of the movement of stars shows that we are expanding from a single event at the beginning of the universe.

But that does not answer my question. So you have not answered the question "if God didn't make the universe, then how was the universe created?" by using any accepted scientific facts.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Well, you have shown you have inadequate knowledge - it's something which you already admitted to. Feverishly googling doesn't really count as great support. I'll have to look back at the specific point where you betrayed your authenticity but it's basically based on the fact that you do not believe: theists at some point have to admit they have zero proof of their position and rely on their personal faith and justify it in terms of cultural pressures or social good. When we get there then the theist will reveal that his belief is based on nothing but emotion.

Right. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. Eventually, a theist will get to "I don't know".

But then so will an atheist when I start asking similar questions.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It's still circular - do you have any definitions that aren't circular!

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it's circular.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

1. I believe this isn't true because in a quantum universe, you cannot know the complete truth of something without looking. And so it can be impossible that shrodinger's cat is dead or possible that he's dead the same time until you've observed it.
2. Yet you are able to do the opposite and claim that something is possible without support.
3. Appeal to ignorance. It is also possible that something cannot be proven to be true and yet it is. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed this with mathematical systems.

Therefore, every line of your reasoning fails on basic facts of what we know about the universe.

I fail to see the relevance of your responses to what I forwarded. So please specific on where my argument falters. Let's go point by point.

Do you disagree that:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you accept 1, then do you disagree that:

2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you accept 2, then do you disagree that:

3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you can't point to any of the above points being wrong, then you must accept the conclusion.

THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God.[1] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism.[2] A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform (panentheistic) monotheism which, while recognising many distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.[3]

Define "supernatural acts" and use a dictionary source for your definition of "supernatural".

No, I am at the point where I'm rejecting your circular definitions.

First off, you have not shown that a "true believer" can do any of those things so this does not demonstrate that I have lesser knowledge of theism than the average theists so I still reject any assertion that Theo was not a valid representation of a theist.

As far as not explaining things further, I say "so what?". If you don't know what "rule" means, consults a dictionary. If you aren't satisfied with the simple definition of the word and want more detail on HOW God rules the universe and no one gives it to you, it does not mean that God doesn't rule the universe - only that you don't understand how God does it. The fact that no one has explained anything to your satisfaction is irrelevant to whether God exists or not.

And I already hold the position that God's existence is not supported so pointing this out means nothing.

Going backwards:
1. We are not talking about God's existence - you don't get to discuss anything unless you can explain what you mean by the thing you are agnostic against.
2. Since you agree that you can't explain how God rules the universe nor point to a rule nor how he enforces it then you can't support God rules over anything.
3. If you can't support even a basic description of something then you cannot begin to talk about its existence or not - it's just a bare assertion with no evidence that can be summarily dismissed with also no evidence.

I'm not throwing out bare assertions for God's existence because I don't argue that God exists. And SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have used the ignorance from argument fallacy to support my position that no one has supported that God exists and that no one has supported that God does not exist (for that is my position).

Gods, I can't even begin to parse that word salad of double negatives. My point isn't that you are saying God exists, I am saying you are claiming he COULD exist. I'm already arguing below what I think that's arguing from ignorance so I won't repeat that here.

No. My position is that I don't know if God exists and therefore don't know how God rules over us if God even exists.

So basically, you don't know anything about the thing you are agnostic against! Are you equally agnostic about talking strawberries?

No. There happens to be a definition of the word "rule" and it doesn't suddenly mean the opposite of its definition just because one doesn't explain exactly how God rules. If the being does not rule as the word is understood, then it, by definition, is not God so a subservient being is not God.

Well, usually those being ruled over have knowledge of such a hierarchy - so you need to supply evidence of that. Since you can't then you can't make the claim that this is possible. You're just throwing speculations after speculations.

My claim as to what God is is fully supported. The dictionary is a valid source of support for the definition of words and since the dictionary defines the monotheistic God as a being that created and rules the universe, I have support that that is what God is.

It's not supported at all - the only thing you MAY have supported (and I say 'may' because you haven't provided evidence) is what people BELIEVE God to be. And since you haven't accepted personal belief as part of your definition then I can't accept your definition as valid. Again, you have nothing but bare assertion that you cannot support.

Okay. But if you didn't tell me anything about your job beyond the title and someone asked me what you job is and I told them your job tittle but could not explain the details because I don't know them, is the person I'm talking to justified in thinking that you don't actually have that job?

Of course not. They would think that I know what job you have but don't know enough about your job to adequately explain it.

Right but I can take the next step I go to the source of the information, which would lead to the person that CAN explain it. You have nothing but bare assertion with no basis in which to believe or verify your information. Your credibility on the matter is further eroded because you can't explain a single thing without invoking turtles. You pretend to be a bona fide believer yet you won't accept that personal faith is a key part of religions. In short, again, you have nothing.

But that does not answer my question. So you have not answered the question "if God didn't make the universe, then how was the universe created?" by using any accepted scientific facts.

That's an irrelevant question - we are just discussing one kind of explanation as being impossible: namely things that cannot be justified or supported or explained without invoking further supported, unjustified or unexplained reasons. In short, other explanations are irrelevant - only your own failures and your lack of support.

Right. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. Eventually, a theist will get to "I don't know".

But then so will an atheist when I start asking similar questions.

Actually, theists will end up saying something along the lines of '... because God made it so, ordained it, or whatever'. The same circular definition of miracles you brought up earlier.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it's circular.

I already did: you said god performs miracles and miracles are acts performed by God.

I fail to see the relevance of your responses to what I forwarded. So please specific on where my argument falters. Let's go point by point.

Do you disagree that:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you accept 1, then do you disagree that:

2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you accept 2, then do you disagree that:

3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.

If so, please explain why this point is wrong. If not, then accept it.

If you can't point to any of the above points being wrong, then you must accept the conclusion.

THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

I already did - read the responses:

1. I believe this isn't true because in a quantum universe, you cannot know the complete truth of something without looking. And so it can be impossible that shrodinger's cat is dead or possible that he's dead the same time until you've observed it.
2. Yet you are able to do the opposite and claim that something is possible without support.
3. Appeal to ignorance. It is also possible that something cannot be proven to be true and yet it is. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed this with mathematical systems.

Therefore, every line of your reasoning fails on basic facts of what we know about the universe.

If you have issues with my arguments then point out where I am wrong - there's no point repeating what you've said; I gave you my answer already and see no reason to come up with anything different.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

SUPPORT OR RETRACT: many theists define God in this way and while you're about it define a theist.

And then once you realize that you're requiring believers in your definition then you can modify it accordingly.

I define a theist as one who believes in God. And of course no theist believes that God requires believers to exist because they typically believed that God created the human race so of course there was a time when no one believed in God because no one existed.

Since atheists are in the minority, the MAJORITY do not believe that the definition of God requires believers. So no, I don't see a good reason to add "has believers" to the definition of God as it would contradict how most people define God.

And it looks to me like adding "has believers" is a semantics trick to discredit the notion of a God who actually exists. After all, if God does not exist without believers then God is purely of the mind and does not exist in reality. So to ensure that neither of us can play such semantic tricks, we need to stick to the dictionary definition AS IS.

And since you provided this, I'm going with it:

"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

That is how God is commonly defined and to argue that no Gods exist, one must show that that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist.

Going backwards:
1. We are not talking about God's existence - you don't get to discuss anything unless you can explain what you mean by the thing you are agnostic against.

And I've forwarded a definition - creator and ruler of the universe. It's been explained.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

2. Since you agree that you can't explain how God rules the universe nor point to a rule nor how he enforces it then you can't support God rules over anything.

But since I don't argue that God event exists let alone rules over anything, I have no burden to support that.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

3. If you can't support even a basic description of something then you cannot begin to talk about its existence or not - it's just a bare assertion with no evidence that can be summarily dismissed with also no evidence.

You can dismiss whatever you want by not even thinking about it or considering it. But if you are going to argue that it does not exist, then you have the burden to support your assertion. So until you support that a being who has created and rules the universe (God) does not exist, you have not made an argument against the existence of God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Gods, I can't even begin to parse that word salad of double negatives. My point isn't that you are saying God exists, I am saying you are claiming he COULD exist. I'm already arguing below what I think that's arguing from ignorance so I won't repeat that here.

And you are wrong about the argument from ignorance fallacy being used.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

So basically, you don't know anything about the thing you are agnostic against! Are you equally agnostic about talking strawberries?

Nope. I know that God, as defined, created and rules the universe. So I know something about God.

My beliefs towards other things has no relevance to God as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Well, usually those being ruled over have knowledge of such a hierarchy - so you need to supply evidence of that.

The evidence is in the very definition of the word "ruled". If someone rules over you (and God, by definition, rules over the entire universe), the hierarchy puts God above everything else, including me. So I know God's hierarchy in regards to the human race.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It's not supported at all - the only thing you MAY have supported (and I say 'may' because you haven't provided evidence) is what people BELIEVE God to be.

At ODN, dictionary definitions are considered valid support for how words and terms are defined. So I have supported that God is the creator and ruler of the universe.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Right but I can take the next step I go to the source of the information, which would lead to the person that CAN explain it. You have nothing but bare assertion with no basis in which to believe or verify your information.

And you have done no better when defending atheism in the face of questions.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Your credibility on the matter is further eroded because you can't explain a single thing without invoking turtles. You pretend to be a bona fide believer yet you won't accept that personal faith is a key part of religions. In short, again, you have nothing.

First off, it is your position that NO theist can explain God without invoking turtles so Theo does no worse than a real theist would. And I never said that personal faith is not part of religion so your belief on my credibility is based on false information.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

That's an irrelevant question - we are just discussing one kind of explanation as being impossible: namely things that cannot be justified or supported or explained without invoking further supported, unjustified or unexplained reasons. In short, other explanations are irrelevant - only your own failures and your lack of support.

No, I'm showing that the method you used for theists also applies to atheists with the same effective results - the person cannot support his position with evidence. What they use instead of evidence is irrelevant whether it be unsupported claims or nothing at all - either way it's NOT support and their position remains unsupported.

So Theos unsupported answers and your lack of answers are both non-support so you both failed to support your position in the face of questions.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I already did: you said god performs miracles and miracles are acts performed by God.

That's not the definition I forwarded. Here it is AGAIN:

"an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God"

That definition doesn't even say that God actually did it but just that people believe that God did. So if someone was "miraculously" cured of cancer by non-supernatural means and someone mistakenly thought that God had something to do with it, then it would qualify as a miracle even though, in actuality, God had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I already did - read the responses:

I read the responses. None of them contradict any of my three points. If you disagree, then show me which specific point of yours invalidates a specific point of mine.

Let's start with the first point of mine:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.

A contrary point would show that the opposite is true - that something can be both possible and impossible. Does any of your points show this? Let's look at them.

1. I believe this isn't true because in a quantum universe, you cannot know the complete truth of something without looking. And so it can be impossible that shrodinger's cat is dead or possible that he's dead the same time until you've observed it.
2. Yet you are able to do the opposite and claim that something is possible without support.
3. Appeal to ignorance. It is also possible that something cannot be proven to be true and yet it is. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed this with mathematical systems.

Nope. None of them show that, contrary to my point 1, that something can be both possible and impossible.

And the same goes the rest of my points. Nothing you have provided contradicts any of my points. If I'm wrong, please select the specific point that I've provided that is wrong and explain how it is wrong.

If you can't do that, then you have no rebuttal and my argument stands.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

I define a theist as one who believes in God. And of course no theist believes that God requires believers to exist because they typically believed that God created the human race so of course there was a time when no one believed in God because no one existed.
Since atheists are in the minority, the MAJORITY do not believe that the definition of God requires believers. So no, I don't see a good reason to add "has believers" to the definition of God as it would contradict how most people define God.

And it looks to me like adding "has believers" is a semantics trick to discredit the notion of a God who actually exists. After all, if God does not exist without believers then God is purely of the mind and does not exist in reality. So to ensure that neither of us can play such semantic tricks, we need to stick to the dictionary definition AS IS.

I have to ask you to support this because theists may well think this for the god of their own religion but if you read how religions explain other people's beliefs you get something like:

Believers of one religion are generally disbelievers of others so I think you're stretching things here.

And since you provided this, I'm going with it:

"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

That is how God is commonly defined and to argue that no Gods exist, one must show that that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist.

Another redefinition and another dodge and again with no references or proof or support. But I'll bite: what does "source of ALL moral authority" mean? What do you mean by SOURCE?

That is a definition of monotheism, not a dictionary definition of God.

And wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The Wikipedia articles references one of the most authoritative dictionaries: The Oxford English Dictionary gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism.[2]

My definition stands.

I am saying that we should use dictionary definitions. Here is a dictionary definition of supernatural (I'm using the first one I find when searching online):

So if it is UNABLE to be explained then how can people say they experienced it? Then how can the supernatural possibly affect this world?

And I've forwarded a definition - creator and ruler of the universe. It's been explained.

SUPPORT or RETRACT that you have EXPLAINED any with a definition. A definition merely describes what people think a word means it neither explains or elaborates otherwise.

But since I don't argue that God event exists let alone rules over anything, I have no burden to support that.

Again, I'm not asking you to support that God EXISTS. I am asking you to EXPLAIN what you mean by RULE OVER and SOURCE OF MORALITY. If you don't do so then you need to drop the definition; and again, do so in a manner that is consistent with how we understand our universe and don't resort to a turtle.

You can dismiss whatever you want by not even thinking about it or considering it. But if you are going to argue that it does not exist, then you have the burden to support your assertion. So until you support that a being who has created and rules the universe (God) does not exist, you have not made an argument against the existence of God.

Thus far, I have concluded that you don't even know what you're talking about so your position, whatever you think it may be is wholly unsupported. (RELIGION 2 deals with how the agnostic position is poorly supported - and there too, you appear to be using NOTHING to support your position).

Also, what do you mean that I need to support another BEING! I don't even accept that you can even explain what you mean by CREATOR and you have still FAILED to explain what you mean by RULES the UNIVERSE!

And you are wrong about the argument from ignorance fallacy being used.

How am I wrong?

Nope. I know that God, as defined, created and rules the universe. So I know something about God.

My beliefs towards other things has no relevance to God as far as I can tell.

No, you don't know ANYTHING of depth about God since you can't explain clearly about the CREATION which you ASSERT could have happened and you have failed to explain how he rules the universe. And I imagine that you will also fail to explain what SOURCE of ALL morality means!

So you may have a few words but you haven't been able to explain what you mean by those words. So I'll have to say that are just making unsupported assertions.

The evidence is in the very definition of the word "ruled". If someone rules over you (and God, by definition, rules over the entire universe), the hierarchy puts God above everything else, including me. So I know God's hierarchy in regards to the human race.

Again, you are taking a bare assertion that you haven't been able to support and applying it to those very things that are wholly unaware of it. If God RULES over humans then exactly how does he do that? What evidence do you have that anything can rule over us!

At ODN, dictionary definitions are considered valid support for how words and terms are defined. So I have supported that God is the creator and ruler of the universe.

No, you have only supported that the word "God" is believed to be the creator and ruler of the universe. It doesn't mean that God exists or could exist or is possible. That's why you need to explain in detail about what it is you believe is possible.

And you have done no better when defending atheism in the face of questions.

I don't need to - you're just appealing to a possible failure in atheism which has nothing to do with the weaknesses of a theistic position.

First off, it is your position that NO theist can explain God without invoking turtles so Theo does no worse than a real theist would. And I never said that personal faith is not part of religion so your belief on my credibility is based on false information.

Yet a theist can go more than a few rounds so your Theo is just a dead end that you have not been able to provide any authenticity to. And if you accept personal faith is part of religion then you have to accept that believers are also part of the definition of God.

No, I'm showing that the method you used for theists also applies to atheists with the same effective results - the person cannot support his position with evidence. What they use instead of evidence is irrelevant whether it be unsupported claims or nothing at all - either way it's NOT support and their position remains unsupported.

So Theos unsupported answers and your lack of answers are both non-support so you both failed to support your position in the face of questions.

Atheists don't make any claims as to how the universe was created. Neither do they make the nonsensical claim that it is being RULED over (something you continue to fail to support) by anything!

Also, your lack of answers are on very basic things you believe can be attributed to your conception of God. And since you continue to keep failing at explaining in plain terms what these words mean, even through 11 or 12 iterations now that you've also decided to add source of morality (again without a source nor explaining it) then all I see are just plain assertions.

That's not the definition I forwarded. Here it is AGAIN:

"an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God"

That definition doesn't even say that God actually did it but just that people believe that God did. So if someone was "miraculously" cured of cancer by non-supernatural means and someone mistakenly thought that God had something to do with it, then it would qualify as a miracle even though, in actuality, God had nothing to do with it.

It is circular because you are referring to God in your definition - the very thing that we're trying to prove COULD exist. And since you accept that miracles sometimes require believers then you should be consistent to accept that God also requires believers. I have many definitions that I stated earlier to that effect and yours probably an outdated 18th century definition.

I read the responses. None of them contradict any of my three points. If you disagree, then show me which specific point of yours invalidates a specific point of mine.

Let's start with the first point of mine:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.

A contrary point would show that the opposite is true - that something can be both possible and impossible. Does any of your points show this? Let's look at them.

1. I believe this isn't true because in a quantum universe, you cannot know the complete truth of something without looking. And so it can be impossible that shrodinger's cat is dead or possible that he's dead the same time until you've observed it.
2. Yet you are able to do the opposite and claim that something is possible without support.
3. Appeal to ignorance. It is also possible that something cannot be proven to be true and yet it is. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed this with mathematical systems.

Nope. None of them show that, contrary to my point 1, that something can be both possible and impossible.

And the same goes the rest of my points. Nothing you have provided contradicts any of my points. If I'm wrong, please select the specific point that I've provided that is wrong and explain how it is wrong.

If you can't do that, then you have no rebuttal and my argument stands.

Point 1 is about how certain we are about our knowledge. You are appealing to the law of the excluded middle in your first point. It fails because our current understanding of the quantum world, reality isn't necessarily one thing or another but a probability distribution: it is POSSIBLE that an electron is in multiple places according to some statistical distribution. Your first point cannot apply because it is possible that multiple things are true according to some distribution. It is both POSSIBLE and IMPOSSIBLE for X to be true.

Point 3 refers to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem; it rebuts your third point because somethings can be true without it being provable.

You're relying on something to be true until it is proven false, so that's a total appeal to ignorance anyway.

So your point here is that your axiom no longer makes sense in the modern way we think about the universe (in terms of fuzzy logic and potentials) and it fails at a basic level (via Godel) that ALL things can be proven before they are true.

I have to reject your whole reasoning process that pretty much dodges any details that you'd have to give to support your case.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

I have to ask you to support this because theists may well think this for the god of their own religion but if you read how religions explain other people's beliefs you get something like

That's irrelevant. When a theist says that God exists, they are referring to the God that they believe in. And if you are going to argue that atheism is correct, then your position is that the God that they believe in does not exist. As far as Gods of other religions go, you would likewise have to tackle their Gods as well. But either way, in this culture the definition of God is "creator and ruler of the universe" per the dictionary.

So even if you want to address other Gods, you still have the burden to show that the "creator and ruler of the universe" does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Another redefinition and another dodge and again with no references or proof or support. But I'll bite: what does "source of ALL moral authority" mean? What do you mean by SOURCE?

It's not a redefinition nor dodge. I took the definition from the dictionary source that YOU PROVIDED. Again:

"God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More"

And as I didn't write what's above, I don't mean anything in particular when I share it with you beyond that that is how God is defined. If you don't know what various words mean, then consult a dictionary.

If you choose to not argue that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist, then you have refrained from arguing that atheism is correct.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

The Wikipedia articles references one of the most authoritative dictionaries: The Oxford English Dictionary gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism.[2]

My definition stands.

I clicked your link for wikipedia and got a dead page. So you will need to provide a valid link for support.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

So if it is UNABLE to be explained then how can people say they experienced it? Then how can the supernatural possibly affect this world?

I didn't say they could. I'm just saying that if you are going to use the term "supernatural", the definition of the word is the one that I just gave.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

SUPPORT or RETRACT that you have EXPLAINED any with a definition. A definition merely describes what people think a word means it neither explains or elaborates otherwise.

A word means whatever people think it means. How else do you think it is determined what a word means?

As I said, the dictionary is a valid source of support on ODN. If you don't agree, that's too bad. I have supported, with a valid source (the dictionary), that God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe.

If you don't like that the dictionary is a valid source for definitions, that's too bad. It still is.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Again, I'm not asking you to support that God EXISTS. I am asking you to EXPLAIN what you mean by RULE OVER and SOURCE OF MORALITY. If you don't do so then you need to drop the definition; and again, do so in a manner that is consistent with how we understand our universe and don't resort to a turtle.

I didn't write the definition so I have no burden to explain it to you in any detail. Nor am I going to drop it just because you're complaining that you don't understand it. If you don't understand God well enough to form an argument that God doesn't exist, then you have no argument. That's not my problem.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Thus far, I have concluded that you don't even know what you're talking about so your position, whatever you think it may be is wholly unsupported. (RELIGION 2 deals with how the agnostic position is poorly supported - and there too, you appear to be using NOTHING to support your position).

And I completely disagree with you on both accounts. Why don't you try debating me on the other site? Beyond what I wrote there today, you haven't responded to my last post for days, maybe a week.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Also, what do you mean that I need to support another BEING! I don't even accept that you can even explain what you mean by CREATOR and you have still FAILED to explain what you mean by RULES the UNIVERSE!

Again, I didn't create the dictionary definition of God so I don't mean anything in particular by any of those words and terms - I didn't invent them. But I do know what they mean. I know what "creator" means. I know what "rule" means. I know what "universe" means. And I expect that I can have a reasonable debate with anyone who has a decent grasp on what those words mean. Do you not have a good grasp on what those words mean or are you pretending to not have a good enough grasp on those words as some kind of debate strategy?

Either way, that's the definition that you forwarded and you need to show that this being does not exist in order to show that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

How am I wrong?

At no point have I used the argument from ignorance fallacy. I never argued that something true based on the lack of evidence that it's not true.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, you don't know ANYTHING of depth about God since you can't explain clearly about the CREATION which you ASSERT could have happened and you have failed to explain how he rules the universe. And I imagine that you will also fail to explain what SOURCE of ALL morality means!

Well, you are correct that I don't anything about the depth of God. That's because I DON'T KNOW IF GOD EXISTS. Since I don't know if God exists, I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE. And since I don't know if God exists I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD RULES THE UNIVERSE. And since I don't know if God exists I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY.

But here's the thing. I do know what "create" means. I do know what a "source" is. I do know what "morality" is. So if someone were to prove that a being exists that did create and rules the universe and is the source of morality, then I would know how God made and rules the universe and is the source of morality and then I could explain it to you.

But until then, no I don't know how God does these things (assuming he even does). And this in no way harms my position. An agnostic would not know how God does those things.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, you have only supported that the word "God" is believed to be the creator and ruler of the universe. It doesn't mean that God exists or could exist or is possible. That's why you need to explain in detail about what it is you believe is possible.

Shifting the burden. This is your thread that is suppose to show that God does not exist. When you support that God does not exist or it's impossible that God does note exist, then I will concern myself with a counter-argument.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

I don't need to - you're just appealing to a possible failure in atheism which has nothing to do with the weaknesses of a theistic position.

I'm showing that the weakness you have shown in theism is also present in atheism. So they have a lot to do with each other.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Yet a theist can go more than a few rounds so your Theo is just a dead end that you have not been able to provide any authenticity to. And if you accept personal faith is part of religion then you have to accept that believers are also part of the definition of God.

Since religion and God are not the same hing, no I don't.

Again, it's like the difference between Dr. Who and the Dr. Who fan club. If Dr. Who never had a fan club, the character would still exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Atheists don't make any claims as to how the universe was created. Neither do they make the nonsensical claim that it is being RULED over (something you continue to fail to support) by anything!

Atheists claim that the universe came to be by means other than a God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Also, your lack of answers are on very basic things you believe can be attributed to your conception of God. And since you continue to keep failing at explaining in plain terms what these words mean, even through 11 or 12 iterations now that you've also decided to add source of morality (again without a source nor explaining it) then all I see are just plain assertions.

How many times do I need to repeat that the definition that I am using IS THE ONE THAT YOU FORWARDED SEVERAL POSTS AGO!!!

And I'm not failing to explain what the words mean. I'm choosing to not explain them because I figure you already know what the words mean.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It is circular because you are referring to God in your definition - the very thing that we're trying to prove COULD exist. And since you accept that miracles sometimes require believers then you should be consistent to accept that God also requires believers. I have many definitions that I stated earlier to that effect and yours probably an outdated 18th century definition.

My definition of miracles was the first one I found online so I doubt it's an outdated one. If you want to provide a different dictionary definition, I will probably accept it instead.

And the argument that miracles require believers so God should as well is ridiculous. They are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Point 1 is about how certain we are about our knowledge. You are appealing to the law of the excluded middle in your first point. It fails because our current understanding of the quantum world, reality isn't necessarily one thing or another but a probability distribution: it is POSSIBLE that an electron is in multiple places according to some statistical distribution. Your first point cannot apply because it is possible that multiple things are true according to some distribution. It is both POSSIBLE and IMPOSSIBLE for X to be true.

Nope. Like before you keep confusing "True" and "Possible" as if they mean the same thing. You mentioned Schrodinger's Cat and how the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box and observe the cat. Until you observe the cat's state, it's POSSIBLE that the cat is alive (or dead) and therefore it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE that the cat is alive (or dead). Likewise if it's possible that an electron is in multiple places, then it's not impossible that an electron is in multiple places

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You're relying on something to be true until it is proven false, so that's a total appeal to ignorance anyway.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT. Which of my three points says that something is true until proven false (and remember, true is not the same as possible).

RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

That's irrelevant. When a theist says that God exists, they are referring to the God that they believe in. And if you are going to argue that atheism is correct, then your position is that the God that they believe in does not exist. As far as Gods of other religions go, you would likewise have to tackle their Gods as well. But either way, in this culture the definition of God is "creator and ruler of the universe" per the dictionary.

So even if you want to address other Gods, you still have the burden to show that the "creator and ruler of the universe" does not exist.

Well, if you're going to argue that one religion is correct then do so. Otherwise, you can't possibly hold an agnostic position on ALL of them!

And if you're going to appeal to "this culture" then you are agreeing that in other cultures that definition is not true. Indeed, I believe you have made my case for me that your specific deity is culturally specific.

Thanks for playing!

It's not a redefinition nor dodge. I took the definition from the dictionary source that YOU PROVIDED. Again:

"God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More"

And as I didn't write what's above, I don't mean anything in particular when I share it with you beyond that that is how God is defined. If you don't know what various words mean, then consult a dictionary.

If you choose to not argue that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist, then you have refrained from arguing that atheism is correct.

Ah, but you neglected to include the parenthetical aspect of the definition that made it religiously specific.

So again, you have done my work for me: your argument is only true in a limited case.

I clicked your link for wikipedia and got a dead page. So you will need to provide a valid link for support.

I didn't say they could. I'm just saying that if you are going to use the term "supernatural", the definition of the word is the one that I just gave.

It was in the definition of what you claim miracles to be.

A word means whatever people think it means. How else do you think it is determined what a word means?

As I said, the dictionary is a valid source of support on ODN. If you don't agree, that's too bad. I have supported, with a valid source (the dictionary), that God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe.

If you don't like that the dictionary is a valid source for definitions, that's too bad. It still is.

Like I said, it's irrelevant what the definition is - you still haven't been able to explain what it even means.

I didn't write the definition so I have no burden to explain it to you in any detail. Nor am I going to drop it just because you're complaining that you don't understand it. If you don't understand God well enough to form an argument that God doesn't exist, then you have no argument. That's not my problem.

Well, you're the one forwarding the definition as something that is possible to exist. In order to maintain that position you need to explain what it means. Since you have failed time and again and continue to tweak the definition (to now include source of morality, which you still haven't explained either), all I can say is that you have nothing of any worth to discuss.

Again, I didn't create the dictionary definition of God so I don't mean anything in particular by any of those words and terms - I didn't invent them. But I do know what they mean. I know what "creator" means. I know what "rule" means. I know what "universe" means. And I expect that I can have a reasonable debate with anyone who has a decent grasp on what those words mean. Do you not have a good grasp on what those words mean or are you pretending to not have a good enough grasp on those words as some kind of debate strategy?

Either way, that's the definition that you forwarded and you need to show that this being does not exist in order to show that God does not exist.

No, but you chose it to represent what you believe COULD exist (but can't prove). But you kept invoking turtles to explain even the simplest points.

I definitely have an idea of what ruling means - it means to establish power over people by providing rules to follow, and rewards and punishments. I fail to see where you have shown that God could do this at all. Thus far, your bare statements are wholly rejected.

Well, you are correct that I don't anything about the depth of God. That's because I DON'T KNOW IF GOD EXISTS. Since I don't know if God exists, I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE. And since I don't know if God exists I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD RULES THE UNIVERSE. And since I don't know if God exists I DON'T KNOW HOW GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY.

But here's the thing. I do know what "create" means. I do know what a "source" is. I do know what "morality" is. So if someone were to prove that a being exists that did create and rules the universe and is the source of morality, then I would know how God made and rules the universe and is the source of morality and then I could explain it to you.

But until then, no I don't know how God does these things (assuming he even does). And this in no way harms my position. An agnostic would not know how God does those things.

OK: what do you mean by the source of morality? How does this transpire? How do you access this 'source'? I don't know how something can be the source of morality. Explain.

I'm showing that the weakness you have shown in theism is also present in atheism. So they have a lot to do with each other.

Bring it up in another thread if you're so interested.

Since religion and God are not the same hing, no I don't.

Again, it's like the difference between Dr. Who and the Dr. Who fan club. If Dr. Who never had a fan club, the character would still exist.

That's not quite the correct analogy. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God as written by him. The religion is everything outside of the Bible.

And I'm not failing to explain what the words mean. I'm choosing to not explain them because I figure you already know what the words mean.

Well, we don't need to go through the exercise where you have failed to explain anything and ended up with turtles. Choose to do whatever you want but the end result is your admitted lack of knowledge to explain anything about God. So basically, you have no argument.

My definition of miracles was the first one I found online so I doubt it's an outdated one. If you want to provide a different dictionary definition, I will probably accept it instead.

And the argument that miracles require believers so God should as well is ridiculous. They are not the same thing.

I believe that was *your* argument, which is getting more circular and empty as we continue. All you're doing is explaining why you don't know anything. I agree you don't know anything and therefore have no argument. I accept your concession on the matter.

Nope. Like before you keep confusing "True" and "Possible" as if they mean the same thing. You mentioned Schrodinger's Cat and how the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box and observe the cat. Until you observe the cat's state, it's POSSIBLE that the cat is alive (or dead) and therefore it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE that the cat is alive (or dead). Likewise if it's possible that an electron is in multiple places, then it's not impossible that an electron is in multiple places

No, possibilities can also be true or not true! It is impossible that a red ball is also blue as seen by a normal color-sighted American human.

Hmm, I don't think that's the right way to understand it. The right way to understand it is that an electron can be in any position according to some statistical description. So therefore, it can be 10% possible to be in position A and 90% impossible to not be in position A. Therefore it is both possible and impossible at the same time.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT. Which of my three points says that something is true until proven false (and remember, true is not the same as possible).

When you say "Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible."

You are saying that it is TRUE that "it is possible God exists" UNTIL it has been proven "it is impossible God exists" (i.e. That the first statement is false).

Basically you're saying X is true until proven false where X is "possible God exists". And that is arguing from ignorance. Clear?

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

First off, let me be clear that since you introduced your google definition of God I have used no other definitions in this debate. I don't always post the entire definition (so sometimes I just say "creator and ruler of the universe") but I have never described God in a fashion that is not present in the definition that you provided. So at this point I am going to not respond to any claim that I've been altering the definition of God. This is my rebuttal to all future accusations of altering the definition and will not be repeated.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Well, if you're going to argue that one religion is correct then do so. Otherwise, you can't possibly hold an agnostic position on ALL of them!

And if you're going to appeal to "this culture" then you are agreeing that in other cultures that definition is not true. Indeed, I believe you have made my case for me that your specific deity is culturally specific.

I'm not appealing to any culture. I'm saying that an atheist has to argue that ALL culture's Gods don't exist which means that you have to show that THIS culture's God doesn't exist (as well as all of the others).

Since you can't or won't even show that this culture's God doesn't exist, you have not shown that atheism is correct.

You can prove all of the Gods of all of the other cultures don't exist but if you still don't show that THIS culture's God (creator and ruler of the universe) doesn't exist, then you have not supported atheism and your argument fails.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Ah, but you neglected to include the parenthetical aspect of the definition that made it religiously specific.

So again, you have done my work for me: your argument is only true in a limited case.

But in religions, God does existed before his believers existed so according to the religious definition of God, God exists even if no one believes in him (otherwise God could have not existed prior to man and therefore God could not have made the universe).

So the definition of God, as believed by MOST people and ALL religious people, does not require believers.

Actually, it's inconvenient when your links don't work but that new one does. And the OED definition mentioned in that article is the definition of "monotheism", not the definition of "God".

So no, you did not provide any other dictionary definition of "God" that included believers.

Monotheism requires believers. God does not.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Like I said, it's irrelevant what the definition is - you still haven't been able to explain what it even means.

So you don't know what "creator and ruler of the universe" means? I have a hard time believing that since you are clearly literate and therefore should know what the word "creator" means and what the word "ruler" means and so on.

What you are apparently looking for is more details. For example, you are asking what method God used to make the universe and what method God uses to rule the universe.

And of course I am failing to explain these details to you because I don't know if God exists, let alone how God, if he even exists, made the universe. So there you go. I don't know how (or if) God made the universe.

So you have my answer so you can stop asking. But not having the details on how God made the universe does not stop me from understanding the concept of God making the universe or thinking that it's possible that this happened (just like I think you might have a particular job even if I barely have a clue on what your job duties are).

So if you want to argue that God did not make the universe, go ahead. If you think you can't mount an argument until you get more details, then I guess you won't be able to mount an argument for atheism and we are done.

I think this response covers many of your points so to cut things down, I will not respond to points that is covered by this (which is pretty much every point asking for me to explain the definition)

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, but you chose it to represent what you believe COULD exist (but can't prove). But you kept invoking turtles to explain even the simplest points.

I definitely have an idea of what ruling means - it means to establish power over people by providing rules to follow, and rewards and punishments. I fail to see where you have shown that God could do this at all. Thus far, your bare statements are wholly rejected.

Shifting the burden. It's your position that God does not exist and therefore you need to show that God does not rule us before I have any burden to show that God does rule us. And since I have no prior burden to show that God rules over us I likewise have no prior burden to explain to you how he does it.

And now it's pretty clear that you do understand what God "ruling over us" means without me explaining it further.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Bring it up in another thread if you're so interested.

YOU are the one who introduced the tactic of asking a theist questions and drawing conclusions based on the answers or lack thereof. I'm saying that this tactic treats atheists the same as theists and therefore your whole asking questions and revealing turtles says nothing particularly relevant about theism that doesn't also apply to atheism and I have shown this by the lack of answers that you gave when the same tactic was used on you.

So it's fine if you want to drop this. I've made my point. Your questions and turtles reveal nothing unique about theism since an atheism revealed similar results. And if you don't want me to bring up how the questions treated atheism, then stop pointing out how they treated theism.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

That's not quite the correct analogy. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God as written by him. The religion is everything outside of the Bible.

Religion is the organization of people who worship God. The Dr. Who fan club is an organization of people who are fans of Dr. Who.

If both organizations vanished, the being in question can still exist (as in the TV Show Dr. Who would still be on the air).

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Well, we don't need to go through the exercise where you have failed to explain anything and ended up with turtles. Choose to do whatever you want but the end result is your admitted lack of knowledge to explain anything about God. So basically, you have no argument.

God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe. So I explained what God is - you just aren't satisfied with the amount of detail. And my argument is that you have not shown that God, as defined by the dictionary and therefore generally described by people, doesn't exist. And you haven't. So my primary argument is true (so far).

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, possibilities can also be true or not true! It is impossible that a red ball is also blue as seen by a normal color-sighted American human.

RIGHT. If the ball, for a fact, is red, then it's impossible that it's blue.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Hmm, I don't think that's the right way to understand it.

No. That is exactly right. You finally stated the correct position on what impossible and impossible means. But I'm guessing to state it right will lead you to concede that I'm correct which is why you now think it's wrong and are going to go back and conflate "true" and "possible" again.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

The right way to understand it is that an electron can be in any position according to some statistical description. So therefore, it can be 10% possible to be in position A and 90% impossible to not be in position A. Therefore it is both possible and impossible at the same time.

Yep. You conflated true and possible again. If an election has a 10% chance of being somewhere than there's a 90% chance that it's true that it's there, not a 90% chance that it's possible.

If the electron might be in position A and might be in position B, then it's completely possible for the electron to be in both.

You had it right with the ball analogy and now you have it wrong. So stick with the ball analogy in analyzing what is "possible".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

When you say "Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible."

You are saying that it is TRUE that "it is possible God exists" UNTIL it has been proven "it is impossible God exists" (i.e. That the first statement is false).

Nope. "Unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible" is one statement so you are incorrect that the first half of that statement is a separate statement.

And the statement's truth value is not based on someone failing to show that it is incorrect which is why it's not based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Basically you're saying X is true until proven false where X is "possible God exists". And that is arguing from ignorance. Clear?

"True that it's possible" just means "possible". The argument from ignorance fallacy deals with saying that something is true, not something is possible.

Since saying that something is possible unless one can show that it's not possible does not attempt to say that something is true, it's not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

In support:

"It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four."

Saying that God's existence is possible is NOT saying that it's true that God exists and it's not saying that false that God exists, so the statement cannot be part of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

I'm not appealing to any culture. I'm saying that an atheist has to argue that ALL culture's Gods don't exist which means that you have to show that THIS culture's God doesn't exist (as well as all of the others).

Since you can't or won't even show that this culture's God doesn't exist, you have not shown that ath

And as I pointed out each religion has no proof to even those that believe in the supernatural. I will take the aggregate expertise of the religion to concede that there is no one religion that is true.

Besides, you haven't been able to even explain this culture's God so you have no point of argument, weak as it is.

But in religions, God does exist before there believers exist so according to the religious definition of God, God exists even if no one believes in him (otherwise God could have not existed prior to man and therefore God could not have made the universe).

That's currently an irrelevant argument - remember you have not been able to establish what you believe God is to begin with. Part of that is your flawed appeal to the one you apparently think you know best (but can't justify much) but to ignore that personal belief is a vital part of a religious belief is now also flawed.

So you admit that a religious beliefs (including those about God) requires a believer, right? You now accept that this is a valid part of the definition.

Actually, it's inconvenient when your links don't work but that new one does. And the OED definition mentioned in that article is the definition of "monotheism", not the definition of "God".

So no, you did not provide any other dictionary definition of "God" that included believers.

Theism requires believers. God does not.

Um, but you were arguing earlier from the point of theism! Goodness me, you're dodging so much that I no longer believe you have a point to begin with!

So you don't know what "creator and ruler of the universe" means? I have a hard time believing that since you are clearly literate and therefore should know what the word "creator" means and what the word "ruler" means and so on.

I think this response covers many of your points so to cut things down, I will not respond to points that is covered by this (which is pretty much every point asking for me to explain the definition)

Since you have conceded you know nothing and can know nothing then you have nothing to argue for or against. Since you have nothing and know nothing then your position is invalid.

You lack of explanation and poor working knowledge is no more useful than talking about strawberries so perhaps you should bone up things a bit before arguing!

Moving forward, when let's just argue that there is a strawberry that created the universe. That way you can focus on the logic of your argument and not get distracted with details and scenarios you can't support.

Shifting the burden. It's your position that God does not exist and therefore you need to show that God does not rule us before I have any burden to show that God does rule us. And since I have no prior burden to show that God rules over us I likewise have no prior burden to explain to you how he does it.

And now it's pretty clear that you do understand what God ruling over us means without me explaining it further.

God ruling is not my claim - it is yours! If you cannot explain simple details about such a simple concept then you need to stop using definitions and words to support your case against me. Indeed, you even took a further step to bring 'source of morality' into it and again, unable to defend it.

You can basically spend the rest of eternity throwing supported material after unsupported material and making me do the work of proving it wrong! Nice trick but if you can't explain the concepts you claim I am arguing against then you again have nothing!

So it's fine if you want to drop this. I've made my point. Your questions and turtles reveal nothing unique about theism since an atheism revealed similar results.

Theo was dropped a long time ago - I'll ignore your comment about atheism - if you want to point out the flaws in atheism then start a thread about it. Please don't bring that up again - I think we both agree that you do not possess the necessary skills to pull off being a Christian!

Religion is the organization of people who worship God. The Dr. Who fan club is an organization of people who are fans of Dr. Who.

If both organizations vanished, the being in question can still exist (as in the TV Show Dr. Who would still be on the air).

Yet the show also makes claims, just as the Bible makes claims. Are you also saying that the Bible and all other religious texts are just fan fiction?

God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe. So I explained what God is - you just aren't satisfied with the amount of detail. And my argument is that you have not shown that God, as defined by the dictionary and therefore generally described by people, doesn't exist. And you haven't. So my primary argument is true (so far).

No, god is defined as something believed to be the creator and ruler of the universe. You need to accept that since you are appealing to a culture conception of God. Your primary argument is not a definition - your primary argument is that a dictionary definition of God could exist: yet you can't explain the dictionary definition - by your own admission, you have no details about how your definition can come about; you have no depth regarding the rich tapestry of knowledge and discoveries about your culturally-specific God.

So you cannot say your argument is true. In facts SUPPORT or retract that "your argument" (please restate it in case I have it wrong) is TRUE.

RIGHT. If the ball, for a fact, is red, then it's impossible that it's blue.

No, I qualified my statements regarding the conditions where the ball has to be blue and not red. You turned it into a general statement. There are scenarios where the ball be blue such as it could be a ball that can change colors.

No. That is exactly right. You finally stated the correct position on what impossible and impossible means. And now that you've done it, you are going to go back and start saying that Impossible and True are the same thing.

???

NO!! If an electron might be in position A (90%) and might be in position B (10%), then it's POSSIBLE that it can be in either A or B.

You had it right with the ball analogy and now you have it wrong. So stick with the ball analogy in analyzing what is "possible".

Good, so now that we have a language to describe possibilities - are you claiming that the possibility of God existing is 0% - 100%?

Nope. "Unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible" is one statement so you are incorrect that the first half of that statement is a separate statement.

And the statement's truth value is not based on someone failing to show that it is incorrect which is why it's not based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Yes it is - you are saying X is true unless it is proven false.

"True that it's possible" just means "possible". The argument from ignorance fallacy deals with saying that something is true, not something is possible.

But you haven't demonstrated that God's existence is POSSIBLE! You're accepting it not only without understanding your own definitions, but those definitions are culturally specific.

So you not only don't understand what you're talking about but you can't explain how it is even possible that the thing exists (of course)

Since saying that something is possible unless one can show that it's not possible does not attempt to say that something is true, it's not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

In support:

"It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four."

Saying that God's existence is possible is NOT saying that it's true that God exists and it's not saying that false that God exists, so the statement cannot be part of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I think you keep trying to misunderstand me:

1. I am not saying that you're claiming God exists.
2. I am not saying that you're claiming God does not exist.

Your claim is that "it is possible God exists". You further claim that this is true (the possibility of God existing) unless proven otherwise.

That is arguing from ignorance.

Besides, this arguing from ignorance is not only from a logical fallacy perspective but also from actual fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have to stand by my point that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shouldn't be arguing for it. I repeat my request that you argue about strawberries so that it is clear that the details are irrelevant.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by SadElephant

And as I pointed out each religion has no proof to even those that believe in the supernatural. I will take the aggregate expertise of the religion to concede that there is no one religion that is true.

Which is a logically flawed position. If a bunch of people disagree about something it does not mean that they are all wrong - it could be that one of them is right and the rest are wrong. Also, a religions being "wrong" is too a vague a term to support that there is no God (being that created and rules the universe). Every religion could be wrong on many things and yet still be right that a God, as defined by the dictionary, exists. Religions could be nothing but made-up hogwash and still accidentally be right about God, as defined by the dictionary, existing (a broken clock is still right twice a day).

So disagreeing religions is not support that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Besides, you haven't been able to even explain this culture's God so you have no point of argument, weak as it is.

Since my argument does not rely on my explaining God any further than what the dictionary definition provides, this shows absolutely no flaw in my argument.

My argument, quite simply, is that you have not been able to show that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist. I have no need to explain anything about God in order to support this. I just point to the fact that there are no arguments on this thread that support that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

That's currently an irrelevant argument - remember you have not been able to establish what you believe God is to begin with.

Balderdash. I've established what I believe God is over and over and over and over again. Now, pay attention:

THE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!

Got it?

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Part of that is your flawed appeal to the one you apparently think you know best (but can't justify much) but to ignore that personal belief is a vital part of a religious belief is now also flawed.

I never said that belief is not a vital part of religion so you comment is false.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

So you admit that a religious beliefs (including those about God) requires a believer, right? You now accept that this is a valid part of the definition.

The definition of religion, yes. But not the definition of God.

I'm noticing that you keep trying to make different words mean the same thing. While God and religion have much common ground, they are not the same thing and therefore what is part of one definition is not necessarily part of the other.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Since you have conceded you know nothing and can know nothing then you have nothing to argue for or against. Since you have nothing and know nothing then your position is invalid.

I didn't concede that I know nothing. I know God, by definition, is THE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE. That is not nothing.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You lack of explanation and poor working knowledge is no more useful than talking about strawberries so perhaps you should bone up things a bit before arguing!

Actually, I do know more. I can explain in greater detail some specifics about what Christians think regarding the issues of where God is and how he rules. I just choose not to do that. My argument does not require me to do that and I think that by giving you more detail, you will use it to move the debate away from the proper focus which is you providing evidence that God does not exist.

So I choose to not give you any more than what the dictionary explains. It's from choice, not from inability. So your assessment of my knowledge is based on false reasoning and I will point that out from now on anytime you say it.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Moving forward, when let's just argue that there is a strawberry that created the universe. That way you can focus on the logic of your argument and not get distracted with details and scenarios you can't support.

Since "strawberry" is not part of the dictionary definition of God, I reject the position that that is part of valid definition.

And I never said I can support that God exists. My position is that you can't, or won't, support that God doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

God ruling is not my claim - it is yours! If you cannot explain simple details about such a simple concept then you need to stop using definitions and words to support your case against me.

My support against you is that you have failed to show that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist. I do not need to provide more details about such simple concepts in order to that so I'm not going to do it.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Indeed, you even took a further step to bring 'source of morality' into it and again, unable to defend it.

Considering I haven't tried, you have no basis to say that I can't. And again, YOU introduced the definition that contains "source of morality". I wonder how many more times I will need to bring this up that the definition I'm using the one that you provided. I think I'm going to start a count. So at this point - 1.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You can basically spend the rest of eternity throwing supported material after unsupported material and making me do the work of proving it wrong! Nice trick but if you can't explain the concepts you claim I am arguing against then you again have nothing!

If you can't understand the concept of "CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE" well enough to argue that it doesn't exist without me providing more detail, then you cannot support atheism.

If you want to use the excuse that I've not explained what the definition means well enough for you to make your argument, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact that you have not supported that God, as defined, doesn't exist and therefore you have not supported atheism. So use whatever excuse your want for not supporting your position - the results are the same. No support for atheism.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Theo was dropped a long time ago - I'll ignore your comment about atheism - if you want to point out the flaws in atheism then start a thread about it. Please don't bring that up again - I think we both agree that you do not possess the necessary skills to pull off being a Christian!

My response regarding atheism is a rebuttal to one of your arguments and I will use my rebuttal anytime you provide that argument that it rebuts. If you don't want to see it again, then don't make the argument that it rebuts.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Yet the show also makes claims, just as the Bible makes claims. Are you also saying that the Bible and all other religious texts are just fan fiction?

No. My analogy does not extend there. It just makes the point that an organization dedicated to a being (living or fictional) and the being itself are not the same thing and the being's existence is not dependent on the organizations existence.

And since you are not challenging this, my point stands.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, god is defined as something believed to be the creator and ruler of the universe.

The dictionary does not define it that way, so no.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You need to accept that since you are appealing to a culture conception of God.

Religious culture does not define God as a being that is believed to exist. Religious culture defines God as a being that DOES exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Your primary argument is not a definition - your primary argument is that a dictionary definition of God could exist: yet you can't explain the dictionary definition - by your own admission, you have no details about how your definition can come about; you have no depth regarding the rich tapestry of knowledge and discoveries about your culturally-specific God.

So you cannot say your argument is true. In facts SUPPORT or retract that "your argument" (please restate it in case I have it wrong) is TRUE.

My argument is that you have not supported that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist. And my support lies in this thread. There are no arguments here that effectively support that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, I qualified my statements regarding the conditions where the ball has to be blue and not red. You turned it into a general statement. There are scenarios where the ball be blue such as it could be a ball that can change colors.

Your scenario mentioned an observer. Regardless of how many colors the ball can change to over time, when the observer sees it, it is one particular color so it's impossible for it to be a color different than what it currently is.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Good, so now that we have a language to describe possibilities - are you claiming that the possibility of God existing is 0% - 100%?

Considering that that covers all possibilities, yes.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Yes it is - you are saying X is true unless it is proven false.

Define X.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

But you haven't demonstrated that God's existence is POSSIBLE!

Yes I have. I have provided an argument proving that, based on all current knowledge, the only logical position regarding God's existence is that it's possible. This the point you are currently attempting, and failing, to rebut.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You're accepting it not only without understanding your own definitions, but those definitions are culturally specific.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I don't understand the definition of God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Your claim is that "it is possible God exists". You further claim that this is true (the possibility of God existing) unless proven otherwise.

But I am not using lack of knowledge for the opposite conclusion as my support for the conclusion so I am not engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. I am using facts and logic to get there. To repeat:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.
3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.
THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

None of the three points that lead to conclusion engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy so the conclusion is not based on the fallacy either.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Besides, this arguing from ignorance is not only from a logical fallacy perspective but also from actual fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have to stand by my point that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shouldn't be arguing for it. I repeat my request that you argue about strawberries so that it is clear that the details are irrelevant.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by mican333

Which is a logically flawed position. If a bunch of people disagree about something it does not mean that they are all wrong - it could be that one of them is right and the rest are wrong. Also, a religions being "wrong" is too a vague a term to support that there is no God (being that created and rules the universe). Every religion could be wrong on many things and yet still be right that a God, as defined by the dictionary, exists. Religions could be nothing but made-up hogwash and still accidentally be right about God, as defined by the dictionary, existing (a broken clock is still right twice a day).

So disagreeing religions is not support that God does not exist.

It does support that there is no framework to determine the truth of a specific religion.

Since my argument does not rely on my explaining God any further than what the dictionary definition provides, this shows absolutely no flaw in my argument.

My argument, quite simply, is that you have not been able to show that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist. I have no need to explain anything about God in order to support this. I just point to the fact that there are no arguments on this thread that support that God does not exist.

No, you do need to explain because you are making statements contrary to how the universe works. Firstly, you are claiming that there could an entity with access to resources outside to create the universe in the first place, second you are claiming this entity could rule over us. None of these statements are supported by the the facts of what we know about the universe nor do they make any common sense. So your definition (one of many) needs to be explained and you have been unable to do so. So you have no argument other than a talking strawberry created the universe.

Balderdash. I've established what I believe God is over and over and over and over again. Now, pay attention:

THE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!

Got it?

So you claim. Yet you refuse to specify what that means. Therefore, you have nothing.

I never said that belief is not a vital part of religion so you comment is false.

Then you concede it is.

The definition of religion, yes. But not the definition of God.

Wrong. I gave you multiple definitions of god that referred to believers. You just happened to choose one that didn't.

I didn't concede that I know nothing. I know God, by definition, is THE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE. That is not nothing.

To all intents and purposes it is nothing because you cannot explain what these words even mean in the context of our known universe. You might as well say he has a osrible armlet for all the good the words mean. Empty words, undefended equals nothing.

Actually, I do know more. I can explain in greater detail some specifics about what Christians think regarding the issues of where God is and how he rules. I just choose not to do that. My argument does not require me to do that and I think that by giving you more detail, you will use it to move the debate away from the proper focus which is you providing evidence that God does not exist.

So I choose to not give you any more than what the dictionary explains. It's from choice, not from inability. So your assessment of my knowledge is based on false reasoning and I will point that out from now on anytime you say it.

Meh, I think the way we dealt with your turtles shows that you just have more unfounded speculation. You have so many holes in your conception of God that it's just one big hole with no substance.

Since "strawberry" is not part of the dictionary definition of God, I reject the position that that is part of valid definition.

I am saying your conception of god is so worthless that you might as well say that God is a strawberry.

My support against you is that you have failed to show that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist. I do not need to provide more details about such simple concepts in order to that so I'm not going to do it.

Yet you cannot explain what the dictionary definition even means. You poorly link this dictionary definition to only religion you know about, and you do that poorly too. In short, you have no real don't get to talk about the existence of something you barely understand. Sorry, but after so many rounds and so many invocations of more things you can't explain, I really don't think you have anything.

Considering I haven't tried, you have no basis to say that I can't. And again, YOU introduced the definition that contains "source of morality". I wonder how many more times I will need to bring this up that the definition I'm using the one that you provided. I think I'm going to start a count. So at this point - 1.

It is a definition that you agreed to so therefore, it is yours to support.

Your scenario mentioned an observer. Regardless of how many colors the ball can change to over time, when the observer sees it, it is one particular color so it's impossible for it to be a color different than what it currently is.

It is not impossible at all - the ball could be an LED ball. Your generalizations are wrong.

Yes I have. I have provided an argument proving that, based on all current knowledge, the only logical position regarding God's existence is that it's possible. This the point you are currently attempting, and failing, to rebut.

You haven't provided anything other than your lack of knowledge of what God even is.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I don't understand the definition of God.

By your invocations of turtles when asked to explain it! That's called making things up as you go along in my book. In other words, because you have no basis in reality regarding God, you resort to supernatural claims that you cannot support or postulate the existence of things outside our known universe without evidence. Sorry, in my book if your understandings are based on speculation, I find it hard to believe you really understand.

But I am not using lack of knowledge for the opposite conclusion as my support for the conclusion so I am not engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. I am using facts and logic to get there. To repeat:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.
3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.
THEREFORE: Beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything is possible.

None of the three points that lead to conclusion engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy so the conclusion is not based on the fallacy either.

In step 3:

3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.

And equally, it could also be considered impossible unless shown to be possible. Both are appealing to ignorance to support a default position.

In addition there are statements that can be true but cannot be proven to be true (Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem) so your ideas about the excluded middle are false.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

It does support that there is no framework to determine the truth of a specific religion.

But it does not support that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

No, you do need to explain because you are making statements contrary to how the universe works. Firstly, you are claiming that there could an entity with access to resources outside to create the universe in the first place, second you are claiming this entity could rule over us.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that either of these statements are contrary to how the universe works. And remember, I'm saying "could be" not "is".

Originally Posted by SadElephant

So your definition (one of many) needs to be explained and you have been unable to do so. So you have no argument other than a talking strawberry created the universe.

As I said, the only definition I'm currently using is the one that you provided several posts ago and no others. I said I'd keep track of how many times I have to point this out so now I'm at 2.

And I've never said anything about a talking strawberry so I'm ignoring that bit of nonsense.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

So you claim. Yet you refuse to specify what that means. Therefore, you have nothing.

That does not logically follow. Me not giving FURTHER DETAILS on what a phrase means does not mean that it means nothing. So no, it does not mean nothing.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Then you concede it is.

I concede that belief is a vital part of religion. I do not concede that belief in God is a vital part of God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Wrong. I gave you multiple definitions of god that referred to believers. You just happened to choose one that didn't.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you gave ANY dictionary definition of the MONOTHEISTIC God that referred to believers.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

To all intents and purposes it is nothing because you cannot explain what these words even mean in the context of our known universe.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I cannot explain what these words mean in the context of our known universe.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Meh, I think the way we dealt with your turtles shows that you just have more unfounded speculation. You have so many holes in your conception of God that it's just one big hole with no substance.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT this statement. Show me ONE hole that I have in my conception of God.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Yet you cannot explain what the dictionary definition even means.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I cannot explain what the dictionary definition even means.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

In short, you have no real don't get to talk about the existence of something you barely understand. Sorry, but after so many rounds and so many invocations of more things you can't explain, I really don't think you have anything.

I have the fact that you have failed to support that God does not exist and therefore have failed to support atheism

It doesn't really matter what I have and don't have. I did not invent the definition of God, I'm just using the one that YOU forwarded. Now can you show that the monotheistic God doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It is a definition that you agreed to so therefore, it is yours to support.

Yeah, I agreed to use the definition that YOU provided. I have already supported that it is a valid definition (since dictionary definitions are support on ODN).

Originally Posted by SadElephant

It is not impossible at all - the ball could be an LED ball. Your generalizations are wrong.

Then you have failed to provide an example of something that is impossible. So try again. Give me an example of something that is impossible.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

You haven't provided anything other than your lack of knowledge of what God even is.

But I have knowledge of what God is. God isTHE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE! And I have supported this.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

By your invocations of turtles when asked to explain it!

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I did that (and I'm referring to me, not Theo). What turtles did I, Mican (not Theo), invoke to explain God?

You seem to be contradicting yourself, BTW. I mean which it? Am I not explaining what "creator and ruler of the universe" means or am I invoking turtles to explain the "creator and ruler of the universe" means?

I think the first one is correct. I am not explaining what "creator and ruler of the universe" means. And I have no reason to in order to support my position.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

3. Therefore unless something is shown to be impossible, it has to be considered possible.

But that truthfulness of that statement is not based on lack of information that the opposite conclusion is true so it's veracity is not based on the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's veracity is based on the prior points being true and logically leading to point 3.

Points 1 and 2 are:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.

If points 1 and 2 are true (and you have challenged neither of them) then point 3 is true as well.

So point 3 is not supported by an argument from ignorance fallacy. Nor does the statement itself say that any particular proposition is true so it does not base any truth on lack of information.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

And equally, it could also be considered impossible unless shown to be possible.

Nope. Points 1 and 2 do not support that conclusion. Your rebuttals seem to reveal that you either don't understand my argument or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

Again, Point 1 is true. Point 2 is true. Points 1 and 2 logically lead to point 3 so it is true as well.

IF point 3 was said to be true because no one could show that point 3 is not true, THEN it would be supported by an argument from ignorance fallacy and therefore not supported. But that's not the basis of support.

Originally Posted by SadElephant

In addition there are statements that can be true but cannot be proven to be true (Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem) so your ideas about the excluded middle are false.

That has no bearing on my position. A position that is true but cannot be proven to be true is considered possible unless it is proven to be untrue.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

PAUSE: We're going around in circles here with you trying to say you know what God is, when in fact,

1. you only have a dictionary definition (that differs from most of the ones I found that indicate that God is believed to ... as part of a religion),

2. that you have an inauthentic outsider understanding of so you also ignore that there is a personal faith component in the claims made of God

3. that you haven't been able to explain without resorting to turtles.

In short, you don't have much of an understand of God or God-nature that can be argued against so I think after so many rounds. And since you admit you don't can't provide depth then you have no standing to argue against me in those terms.

I will have to ask that you concede your side of this and try another approach that is based on actual knowledge. You should ignore the next section and skip to your logical reasoning, although that argument only applies once you know what you're talking about to some plausible level of detail or depth.

==================================================

Originally Posted by mican333

But it does not support that God, as defined by the dictionary, does not exist.

It supports that there is no way to determine whether God exists. You are therefore speculating on two levels: one the possible existence of God and the possible existence of proof for God. In other words, turtles.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that either of these statements are contrary to how the universe works. And remember, I'm saying "could be" not "is".

You're speculating about a universe that you have no evidence for and specifying an action that you cannot prove. You haven't been able to explain what you even mean by these terms without resorting to more unfounded speculation. In other words turtles.

That does not logically follow. Me not giving FURTHER DETAILS on what a phrase means does not mean that it means nothing. So no, it does not mean nothing.

No, it means that your argument is nothing but turtles. There is no reason to take your lack of knowledge any more seriously than a bono-fide theist and they invoke turtles almost immediately.

I concede that belief is a vital part of religion. I do not concede that belief in God is a vital part of God.

From whence do people get information about God? A dictionary or a religion?

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you gave ANY dictionary definition of the MONOTHEISTIC God that referred to believers.

The wikipedia article.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I cannot explain what these words mean in the context of our known universe.

See your past posts.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT this statement. Show me ONE hole that I have in my conception of God.

Your resorting to turtles to explain him.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I cannot explain what the dictionary definition even means.

See your past posts.

I have the fact that you have failed to support that God does not exist and therefore have failed to support atheism

It doesn't really matter what I have and don't have. I did not invent the definition of God, I'm just using the one that YOU forwarded. Now can you show that the monotheistic God doesn't exist?

This isn't a discussion about atheism. I have no definition of God but I refer to the entities that religions believe in. In short, I believe that God is a human creation and there is every indication this is fact.

Then you have failed to provide an example of something that is impossible. So try again. Give me an example of something that is impossible.

I don't need to - my point is to show you, and you agree that there are things that are possible and impossible at the same time. The first step of your reasoning fails.

But I have knowledge of what God is. God isTHE CREATOR AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE! And I have supported this.

No, you only have knowledge of what God is defined. In one dictionary definition that differs from the four or five I provided that indicated that God is only believed to exist. So not only do you disagree with a majority of the definitions that point out that deities are a produce of human belief systems but you appear to only have a shallow understand of what theists actually believe in. So I don't think you've supported any depth, which you concede you don't have anyway. In short, you have nothing.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I did that (and I'm referring to me, not Theo). What turtles did I, Mican (not Theo), invoke to explain God?

Um, you are Theo so what are you talking about - Theo is your poor understanding of what a theist would say. And if you're confused look at the turtles ALL the theists have had to invoke at the beginning of this thread.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, BTW. I mean which it? Am I not explaining what "creator and ruler of the universe" means or am I invoking turtles to explain the "creator and ruler of the universe" means?
I think the first one is correct. I am not explaining what "creator and ruler of the universe" means. And I have no reason to in order to support my position.

Both: turtles explain nothing since they are merely more unsupported claims. The more turtles you invoke, the more holes there are. At the end of the day, since you don't say anything that links to the physical universe, it's all just pure speculation.

==================================================

But that truthfulness of that statement is not based on lack of information that the opposite conclusion is true so it's veracity is not based on the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's veracity is based on the prior points being true and logically leading to point 3.

Points 1 and 2 are:

1. Something is either possible or impossible - it can't be both and it can't be neither.
2. Something cannot be declared to be impossible without support that it's impossible.

If points 1 and 2 are true (and you have challenged neither of them) then point 3 is true as well.

So point 3 is not supported by an argument from ignorance fallacy. Nor does the statement itself say that any particular proposition is true so it does not base any truth on lack of information.

Nope. Points 1 and 2 do not support that conclusion. Your rebuttals seem to reveal that you either don't understand my argument or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

Again, Point 1 is true. Point 2 is true. Points 1 and 2 logically lead to point 3 so it is true as well.

IF point 3 was said to be true because no one could show that point 3 is not true, THEN it would be supported by an argument from ignorance fallacy and therefore not supported. But that's not the basis of support.

Well, you're point 1 is challenged. There are situations that can be impossible AND impossible (i.e. both - e.g. Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead, or in other words both possible it is alive and impossible that it is alive). Contra-wise, the cat is also both possible to be dead and impossible to be dead too.

2 should also be flipped - you cannot claim it is possible without support that it is possible. Since you continue to say God is POSSIBLE then you need to specify how? Take that as a formal challenge or withdraw the statement that it is possible God exists.

That has no bearing on my position. A position that is true but cannot be proven to be true is considered possible unless it is proven to be untrue.

No, it means that your conclusion is false. If there are things that are true but cannot be proven then your third point can't be satisfied.

Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

Originally Posted by SadElephant

Well, you're point 1 is challenged. There are situations that can be impossible AND impossible (i.e. both - e.g. Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead, or in other words both possible it is alive and impossible that it is alive). Contra-wise, the cat is also both possible to be dead and impossible to be dead too.

Wow, you can now add "something is possible or impossible" vs. "something is or is not" to the list of concepts which you clearly don't understand.